February 14, 2008

[Ken] Silverstein's dander is up because he thinks I called him "America's worst pundit." But the rest of the world understood pretty well that I was referring directly to William Kristol, whom I discussed in the previous paragraph.... He then goes to the trouble to find a bunch of things I said in a conversation which, ripped out of context, sound wrong today. But I'm guessing that if I went to the trouble of going back and looking directly at the quotes in question, I could find sufficient qualifiers purposely ignored by Silverstein to demonstrate that I was not saying what he pretends I am. (And don't forget, Silverstein is quoting something I said in conversation, not something I wrote in a monthly magazine. Ann Althouse did the same thing to me in both her blog and in a New York Times op-ed. This is one reason, aside from a lack of time, I stopped doing bloggingheads.tv. It's ridiculous to say something in conversation and to have people treat it as if, well, as if you wrote it in a fact-checked monthly magazine.)

"In conversation"? He said something in a public dialogue on Bloggingheads. It's not like I publicized something he said to me in a private conversation. I have no interest in this current hissyfit about Ken Silverstein, but why drag me into it and insinuate that I did something underhanded? You can read my blog post (and NYT column) for yourself. I took something he said seriously and argued against it. What on earth is his problem? My guess is he has some shame about having uttered the words "I think it would be good if we had some sort of, you know, blogging — you know — council, where we could condemn people." He should also have some shame about attacking me baselessly and totally out of context like this. And he's the one who wanted to enforce standards! Ha!

AND: Speaking of criticism from out of nowhere, can anyone explain why Amanda Marcotte is trashing me here? The closest I can come to understanding her point is that she interprets the phrase "shameless sybarite" as unalloyed praise.

UPDATE: Eric Alterman calls me "insane" in this new post, which — since I'm sitting on the floor at O'Hare with nothing to do — I'm going to fisk:

Ann Althouse is insane, continued: Read her here. The story is this: I made a point, yesterday, about the fact that one tends to be more considered in print, particularly print in a monthly fact-checked magazine, than in casual conversation. She saw her name there and has become hysterical over something I clearly didn't say -- and you can check the tape below -- notably, that bloggingheads.tv somehow constitutes a "private" conversation.

Well, Eric saw my post here and has become hysterical over something I clearly didn't say — and you can read the post above. I didn't say that Eric thought that Bloggingheads is a private conversation. I said he was reacting as if I'd done something underhanded, which might have made sense if I'd repeated something from a private conversation. But since it wasn't at all private, and in fact was especially public, my taking his quote seriously was perfectly justified and not at all underhanded. I didn't like seeing my name dragged down for no reason and I wrote this post to complain. He could have apologized, but instead, he wrote another post and called me insane. That's insane.

She then takes her own, imaginary reading of what I wrote and goes on to speculate that I feel a secret "shame" about what I said.

Actually, Eric, I'm sure you're shameless. That was a joke and a dagger to punish you for attacking me.

This is exactly the kind of thing, I suppose, one would expect from a woman who attacks other women for having boobs.

And Eric, since I never did that, you are lying about me — in an especially sexist way.

Perhaps Althouse should get together with the similarly challenged Ken Silverstein and the two of them can do this kind of thing all the time, but in private.

That's what passes for a masturbatory fantasy in the mind of Alterman.

In the meantime, allow me to recommend a book I just finished teaching to my students, Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death, in a new 20th anniversary edition from Viking, which contains some extremely useful musings on the advantages of thinking in print compared to musing in conversation -- particularly televised conversation. Think before you blog, people; a mind is a terrible thing to waste, and so is my time.

Alterman is incoherent. Blogging is writing. In any case, both speech and writing are valuable. Obviously, when Alterman was teaching that book to his students, he was speaking. We human beings do both, and conversation has a long and honorable tradition, longer than writing. We get a good sense of what people are by hearing them speak. It has a special trustworthiness that writing lacks.

Look at how we insist on hearing our political candidates speak, and we don't get that much out of their policy papers (which others have crafted and polished). We judge people by how they seem when they speak, and I judged Alterman harshly for the revelation of the mind I glimpsed when he said "I think it would be good if we had some sort of, you know, blogging — you know — council, where we could condemn people." Imagine if he were a political candidate and said something like that. It would be the end.

(And I'm not trashing bloggingheads, which is among the best of these conversations. It's just that the medium is by definition limited, and so is my time, which was the main reason I stopped doing them. I told Rob I would be glad to do a few once Why We're Liberals is published because, well, one has to promote one's real work.)

Yeah, he'll go on video to flog his book.

And he did trash Bloggingheads... which he can't go on, because something shockingly repellent oozes out. It's gruesome!

It's ridiculous to say something in conversation and to have people treat it as if, well, as if you wrote it in a fact-checked monthly magazine.

Given that the statement Ann called him on was an opinion -- specifically, that a "council" of bloggers that condemned the unworthy might be a good idea -- I'm not sure why Eric would think that "fact-checking" would have saved him.

Sanity checking, maybe. Fact-checking, not so much, unless someone pointed out the obvious fact that anyone suggesting a dippy idea like that would get mocked up one side of the blogosphere and down the other.

Well, I was surprised to see the way my name came up over at Alterman's blog. It's not as though I was reading the thing and thinking it must be about me. My name popped up for no reason. Amanda Marcotte is also trashing me today for no reason at all, but I'm not going to link to her.

Anyway, yeah, I should vlog. For some reason, I don't vlog so much when I'm in New York.

She has LDS [Limbaugh Derangement Syndrome]. She hates Rush and she hates the social conservatives. From her viewpoint I don't think see can see the difference between the two.

Even if she could, she wouldn't want to admit it, because it would one less reason to hate him, one less name to call him.

Notice the rape attack, there was nothing in the linked article that referenced Rush, just a state senator's old timer believe about rape. If you don't follow the link (or you don't understand blogging hatch jobs), you might think that the quote was something Rush said (within these two pieces, there is not evidence, only an implied slur by association).

I fail to see anybody could read your piece and think Rush was a feminist (except in a strange binary thinking world where all non-"social conservatives" were feminists).

P.S. why did she "termed the word" rather than something more clear, such as coined the term or create the term?

Marcotte doesn't get it. Ann, a moderate, listens to Rush and draws some interesting conclusions about the weird relationship between him and the religious right. Marcotte simply wants to argue that they're both Evil! Which is why this blog is so much more interesting. And people who are willing to look outside their own point of view are more interesting in general. In my opinion, this is why the extreme left is so annoying. The extreme right is too, but more of them seem willing to try (or at least pretend to try) to understand the other side in order to argue against them. The extreme left often acts as though it shouldn't have to.

So Ann says Rush is a hypocrite because he isn't practicing what (she thinks) he's preaching.

Then Amynda says ANN YOU STUPID SHITBAG* don't you know that Social Conservatism is founded on RAPE and the Degradation and Enslavement of women everywhere and therefore Limbaugh's hedonism is consistent with the RAPE-IDEOLOGY that he preaches.

Of course, only Amynda could be so twisted as to interpret a guy having fun with ladies and gadgets as a man diving headfirst into a celebration of rape ideology in practice.

Amanda needs to get laid. But with all that non-stop bitching and whining, the prospects aren't good, unless some small-weenie liberal guy pretends he agrees with everything she says for about two minutes.

Michael H, I'm sure your comment is the one that Amanda will select to retrash me, so let me distance myself from it. I don't think opinions like hers are caused by sexual abstinence, and though I'm not a social conservative, I bristle at that disparagement of sexual abstinence, which is one of the choices individuals may make about their private lives. It deserves at least as much respect as the other approaches to sex.

It's a displacement of sending men on quests ; only directed by feminism to men in general, rather than to a particular man.

So there's no possibility that the man will happily go off on the quest, and get rewarded when the woman shows him that she's satisfied with him, which ritual can go on indefinitely, with each side rewarded.

And it can go off course even with a particular man, when it becomes nagging and no showing of satisfaction.

Amanda Marcotte is, to put it bluntly, nuts; a mental slum teenager in an adult's body. She is trashing you because you actually admitted listening to Rush Limbaugh; the enemy of the people. Her people anyway. People are not supposed to listen to Rush. They are supposed to listen to or read erudite persons like her.

Ms. Marcotte’s blog is the equivalent of verbal pornography. I guess she fulfills a need. People with the maturity of obscene teenagers with raging hormones need a place to express themselves too. Like prostitutes, she does provide a service. How else does one explain her readership?

The amazing thing is that there are some who actually take her seriously. Maybe profanity and vulgarity do have a place in the discussion of ideas.

She has Fonda talking about a play with an inappropriate word as a title, the price of an inappropriate word for Valentines day, and other vulgarities and profanities.

I guess there are all kinds of so called "intelligent" people out there who think she is smart, witty, hip, and an intellectual. She is a total cretin. She is a verbal pimp, pandering to the needs of the immature.

Of course she uses the "political correct" excuse- they have all kinds of excuses for bad behavior- of context. If things are taken in their proper context they are not offensive; unless of course they are expressed by those you do not like, agree with, or perceived enemies.

She has every right to be vulgar, obscene, and profane, even insulting. We have every right to criticize her. I wonder if she could take it.

Amanda Marcotte is interpreting "shameless sybarite" to mean "hooray for rape". Since no one has yet succeeded in finding a phrase that Amanda Marcotte will not interpret to mean that, I wouldn't waste too much time wondering about it.

Ann, you have amazing power over some of these people. Its interesting to me the way folks on the left (this is where I notice it anyway) are simply unwilling to discuss or debate positions, policies or issues. Even if you don't necessarily disagree with them but simply want to explore a point you can find yourself attacked.

==

I don't know how you can listen to Limbaugh for a month. I just don't find his show entertaining. I experience it this way:

....here at the Limbaugh institute for advanced conservative studies...

My mind drifts off. I need to see about that gutter on the house.

...with half my brain tied behind my back...

Drift off. I forgot to take my wife's car to get the oil changed. Gotta get that done this weekend.

Hmmm...Amanda Marcotte trashes Althouse. How long will we have to wait for 'Cyrus Pinkerton' to show up? Perhaps 'he' will treat us to an analysis of how one may briefly be a member of Rush's audience without actually being from it, and how Althouse is actually in the latter camp. Althouse seems to have actually listened to Limbaugh, and has given us from time to time a few thoughtful critiques. You don't listen to the DEVIL! You can't give thoughtful critiques to PURE EVIL!!

Or perhaps 'Cyrus' will explain to us how "shameless sybarite" is really a term of approbation, because anybody, especially a white male, who loves luxury, must logically also love rape.

The appearance of Cymanda never fails to confirm the truths of both Pope's famous warning about knowledge, and P.T. Barnum's bon mot about the American public.

The same may be said, I'm afraid, of Rush Limbaugh. But Rush, at least, is full of life and seldom fails to amuse. Ms. Marcotte and her ilk are deadly dreary, and seldom fail to make one wish for a migraine so that one might feel better.

Okay, I just read Marcotte's rant. She's obviously too blinded by hatred of you and Rush to understand what you wrote. It looks like she just scanned it and reflexively attacked. Some of her commenters understand and are trying to correct her, but she's just unhinged.

Ann: "[Rush] doesn’t care about family values and that sort of thing. He’s constantly alluding to his interest in having his fun with women and evading any burdensome entanglements. He has absolutely no interest in children. He gives every sign of being a shameless sybarite." [ie. hedonist]

Amanda: [Rush] thinks women are inferior pieces of meat to be purchased on the open market ...women are subhuman, to be used for sexual reasons and not to be taken seriously as human beings.

Complete disconnect on her part. If Amanda decides she wants to play the field, date around and not settle down, its empowering and liberating. If Rush does the same, he's part of the patriarchal pantheon. Although its ironic to hear her moralizing about what other people do with their bodies.

Amanda: For instance, here’s a social conservative recently on the subject of rape: “Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse. Today it’s simply, ‘Let’s don’t go forward with this act.’ ”

When the cads rape the women they’ve been assigned as sex objects -

Note that Seantor Henry said "when I was learning these things". Henry was born in 1926. In the 1940's, forced sex with your wife was [wrongly] not considered rape. And his point is that the term has been hijacked and stripped of meaning: "raping the environment, raping the Child Care Bill, etc".

Amamnda: It’s almost like Ann’s full of shit or something.

This is the woman Eliabeth Edwards recommended for a campaign job? What happened to Marcotte to turn her into such a pathetic creature?

Note that Seantor Henry said "when I was learning these things". Henry was born in 1926. In the 1940's, forced sex with your wife was [wrongly] not considered rape. And his point is that the term has been hijacked and stripped of meaning: "raping the environment, raping the Child Care Bill, etc".

A disgreement!

The correct charge is assault, when it's one's wife.

There has ever since been a huge general confusion about rape.

Buckley wrote about that, back when it happened, I guess in the 70s. It's a crime against feminine modesty, he wrote, which a wife is presumed not to have with respect to a husband.

Or I would argue, rape affects the deal a woman can make for herself in the marriage market or the dating scene, and that's what's being protected. With respect to a husband by a husband, there's no such effect.

Instead an aura of sacredness is thrown up that confuses women even more than men today.

Amanda, you are in my thoughts in the way I can remember each migraine I have in the course of a year. The one at the beginning of December, for example, was a doozy, although the one last April with the auras put me in mind of your rhetorical style.

*****Fen: You want evidence? I give you Exhibit 'A' right in front of you. Other than that, there is stylistic evidence, the evidence of some old, inactive blogs created by the same person, and, of course, the always fascinating trail of IPs.

And you know 'Maxine' is the same as our old friend 'Luckyoldson,' not to mention the current stable of weak imitations, such as 'fstopfitzgerald.'

Finally, to tell you something everybody knows, 'Sir Archy' is the same as 'blogging cockroach.' But at least that person tries to be amusing.

I suppose 'Maxine' is funny, too, if you have a taste for gastric distress.

Anyway, I'm facing an all-night crisis at work, so now that the gang's mostly here, I'll leave you to carry on as usual. Remember, 'Cyrus' always gets the Last Word.

Marcotte's a communist, and communists want to control all communication. Anyone who isn't controlled by them is a threat to their control. The funny thing is they try to implicitly make the case that you're not cool if you don't follow their lead. But the funny thing is that communists smell like fish from three weeks ago, and are anything but cool.

You're cool, and she knows it.

She's forever in a junior high with bars on the windows but she will try to get her fingernails to grow long enough to scratch at outsiders. It's all she's ever going to have, because once you're a communist you have agreed to remove your brain in order to fit in with all the others who've floated belly up, mentally.

I take it that the legal position today is that a husband can be charged with rape of his wife (rather than just assault).

In many jurisdictions, the proper term is criminal sexual assault. Rape, as defined, was to specific and did not cover enough ground for other sexual crimes. The crime of Criminal Sexual Assault includes several crimes, including the old "rape" statutes.

In Illinois, having sex with anyone against their will- even your wife- is illegal and is a criminal sexual assault. Of course there is a vast difference betwen what you call it for an investigative report, and what is charged, what is eventually prosecuted if it gets that far.

He was suggesting you did something he finds inappropriate, not necessarily something underhanded.

He should also have some shame about attacking me baselessly and totally out of context like this.

This complaint of yours about Alterman is (inadvertently) amusing because it's what Alterman was complaining about to begin with -- i.e., that he's tired of words he utters casually (i.e., off the cuff) being ripped out of context and then attacked.

Dear Althouse, it amazes me again and again that, with your, er, idiosyncratic comprehension of English, anyone in the USA thinks you can teach law, never mind practise it.

Cervantes said... This complaint of yours about Alterman is (inadvertently) amusing because it's what Alterman was complaining about to begin with -- i.e., that he's tired of words he utters casually (i.e., off the cuff) being ripped out of context and then attacked.Dear Althouse, it amazes me again and again that, with your, er, idiosyncratic comprehension of English, anyone in the USA thinks you can teach law, never mind practise it.

There we go with that context nonsense again. Context is the ultimate excuse abuse.

Licensing the Press was, in my Day, a constant Source of Complaint & Evasion; and any rational Person will see that such a Step is unnecessary for the Rapid & Ephemeral Publishing much in vogue in this Modern Age.

Having no Wish to harass Authors, yet I am convinced that one more Office may be added for the good Order & Safety of Author and Reader alike. That is, the Inspector in Ordinary of Lunaticks, a Post for which I may humbly say I am most worthy.

My long years of Experience in Bedlam, and Acquaintance with the Causes of most Distempers of the Brain & Spirit, have well-prepar'd me for such an Office. My Ghostly State insures that I will require little Pay, and few Holidays.

That there be a Need for an Inspector of Lunaticks is manifest by the very Action you see above in this Topick. The Appearance of our Spanish Author is proof enough.

I shall endeavour to deserve Preferment; you have my Word that I shall not fail to give Satisfaction.

Ann,Assuming you mean the “condemning” comment he made on bH.tv, isn't “shockingly repellent” a bit harsh? You may think a semi-official bloggers’ council would tend to be an inherently politicized body and would either have a chilling effect on online speech or be ignored and therefore useless. If so, you may be right. But the case for online media criticism and fact-checking is a plausible one and the harms of its relative absence arguably considerable. Wouldn’t you consent to judge this view in milder terms? If not, could you explain your use of the term “shockingly repellent”? Thanks.